Indeed, there is a 1971 Opinion of the Wisconsin Attorney General that determined that a bill changing collective bargaining rights was not a fiscal statute under the constitution and did not require a three-fifths quorum.

Assuming he's right, 1) I would not like to think about the competency of the combined senators not to have known about this and 2) if it does get split up in this fashion to be passed, wouldn't the Assembly need to vote again on the altered legislation?

@ Scott I've been asking for the bill to split the whole time. Yes, the assembly would need to ratify a new bill. (I'm not sure if they were done separately if they could use a committee to sort out the differences )

If you wonder why I want it split, it's because I believe the bargaining rights portion wouldn't pass.

I don't see how Risser couldn't have known this -- he was a Senator back in 1971, after all, when the Opinion was written."

They did know this. The legal matters are irrelevant, the entire event is political theater. Democrats want the Republicans to pass the bill without them so they can claim Republicans are using tricks to pass legislation. It's never been about the facts.

Nothing in that analysis is likely to be news to the WI senate majority. All along, the commentary coming from the WI senate leaders has indicated that they understand this too.

But that's not all that's in Walker's budget reform bill. They may yet take up the provisions dealing with union dues, annual recertification elections and collective bargaining in a separate bill. But for now, they seem more intent on forcing the Dems back to WI.

The only conclusion I draw is that the WI senate majority (and the governor) think it benefits them to keep the focus on the issue in this way. Time (and the results of the next election) will tell.

@ Scott I've been asking for the bill to split the whole time. Yes, the assembly would need to ratify a new bill. (I'm not sure if they were done separately if they could use a committee to sort out the differences )

If you wonder why I want it split, it's because I believe the bargaining rights portion wouldn't pass."

Unfortunately the bargaining rights provision of the Budget Bill is found in the...wait for it...Budget Bill. Good luck making the case that the Budget Bill is not fiscal in nature.

Separating that item and passing it independently without a super-quorum was always an option, as I understood it, just not one the R Senators wanted to undertake. They are sticking to the "it's a necessary part of the budget fix" script as a modicum of cover...

"Unfortunately the bargaining rights provision of the Budget Bill is found in the...wait for it...Budget Bill."

There's no such thing as a "bargaining right."

Collective bargaining is a privilege allowed under a law that can be amended or abolished. It is not a right guaranteed by the Constitution. Collective bargaining can be eliminated anytime we all agree it should be eliminated and any time it becomes too expensive to pay for.

" Good luck making the case that the Budget Bill is not fiscal in nature."

No, no, no. It's a Budget Repair Bill. It's no more a budget bill than a jackhammer is a sidewalk. The purpose of the collective bargaining provisions is to give local officials the "tools" they will need to repair their budgets now that the actual budget bill has been released, in which municipalities face steep cuts in State funding (unless they need roads built). Also, all that stuff in the Budget Repair Bill about cutting State employee compensation by 7%, that's tools too. Not budget.

No, no, no. It's a Budget Repair Bill. It's no more a budget bill than a jackhammer is a sidewalk.

That's not entirely true. It's a budget bill to affect this CURRENT budget cycle. That's why it's called repair. Revisionary would also work - it's not meant to address only the "causes" or they wouldn't need quorum.

Then let me explain: Democrats set the rules for the debate. If we agree with something, then we vote. But if we don't agree, then we change the rules and flee like little pussy girls so we can't lose.

Those are the new rules.

Republicans are just reacting to the new rules and so in the future, any legal rulings or opinions that back up our preconceived ideas we will support and any that don't will be declared "judicial activism" and we will ignore those.

So fuck you, dude. We're only doing precisely what Democrats do every single day and you have absolutely no problem with them doing it and never have.

So fuck you.

You would impose an intellectual consistency on us that you yourself rarely if ever impose on yourself or Democrats.

As others not, the word much is the key. I'm not sure why the Senators didn't break out the non-budget parts long ago and vote on them. But if they did that, then they wouldn't have the cover/fiction that they had to pass all the things that constituents might object to fix the budget hole

I think everyone knows that the reason not to split the bill is tactical, not legal. Mainly: regardless of the AG opinion, if the bargaining provisions are altered without the super-quorum, it *will* be legally challenged on that basis. By refusing to split it and holding out for a super-quorum, that challenge is mooted.

Union battles these days are about protecting the privileges and income of union leaders, who obviously actually must hate the poor or workers given they are willing to risk worker jobs but not union leader perks.

• American Federation of Teachers. Membership: 887,000; assets: $115 million. AFT is the smaller of the two teacher unions and also represents school support staff, higher education faculty and staff, health care professionals and state and municipal employees. At AFT's headquarters in Washington, nine officers and employees earn more than $200,000 a year. Randi Weingarten, who was elected president in 2008, received $428,284 in salary and benefits. Of the $2.4 million donated to political candidates in the past two years, the union gave all but $10,000 to Democrats.

It would take some masterful rhetorical skill to argue this is anything other than blatant corruption being waged on the backs of working teachers and the poor.

This is not news at all. Walker has been asked about this ad nauseum, both by local and national media. Perhaps I'm ridiculously naive, but he's basically taking a principled position: yes, they could pass it separately, but the whole purpose of the collective bargaining provisions is to provide local governments the ability to deal with fiscal issues (such as the $1 billion+ reduction in state assistance to local schools). So he's being consistent between his stated objectives and the means by which he achieves them. Implicit in this approach is something very, very refreshing, particularly in light of the actions of Dem legislators in Wisconsin and Indiana: the means by which you achieve your objectives must be legitimate, regardless of the ends you seek. That's a lesson the Wisconsin 14 would do well to take to heart.

I think he was trying to intimate that we are in favor of hanging blacks or something. I dunno, the comment didn't have a drop of truth behind it so it made no sense and just made him sound like a total idiot.

"Union treasuries - filled by dues paid by union members - not only fund programs benefiting union members and their families. The money they collect also pays six-figure compensation packages for labor leaders and provides millions of dollars for Democratic causes and candidates."

The money they collect also pays six-figure compensation packages for labor leaders

Worse than that: Thousands of uniformed young girls have been sent out this month to sell cookies. The money they collect also pays a six-figure compensation package for their Girl Scouts of America leader.

Worse than that: Thousands of uniformed young girls have been sent out this month to sell cookies. The money they collect also pays a six-figure compensation package for their Girl Scouts of America leader.

Doesn't that violate some child labor law?

--------

Thanks for the unfunny joke.

We know you don't give a shit about the corrupt patronage that is threatening to bring this country to it's fiscal knees, but some of us do.

FLS - RE: Girl Scounts. Glib, but pretty nonsensical. The difference is that Girl Scounts aren't forced to be Girl Scounts in order to be - er - girls. It's that funny thing we call "free association," something sorely lacking from the unions in question.

But if you mean there's too much special interest money in politics -- with Citizens United the Supreme Court pretty much gave the Koch Brothers free rein. What are you gonna do?

-------

I doesn't have anything to do with special interest money doofus. The problem isn't corporation paying politicians but politicians paying corporations, TARP and the auto bailouts and public unionsm the whole stinking pile.

Do you think the Dems could stay away till the recall election in July?

Would they even qualify to run? There's a residency requirement -- if you quite pointedly and publicly move to Illinois and refuse to set foot in Wisconsin in the months leading up to the election, do you still qualify for office?

There's a residency requirement -- if you quite pointedly and publicly move to Illinois and refuse to set foot in Wisconsin in the months leading up to the election, do you still qualify for office?

I'm looking, but for voters, where your spouse and kids live is determinative. Temporary absences don't change residence, either:

6.10 Elector residence. Residence as a qualification for votingshall be governed by the following standards:(1) The residence of a person is the place where the person’shabitation is fixed, without any present intent to move, and towhich, when absent, the person intends to return.(2) When a married person’s family resides at one place andthat person’s business is conducted at another place, the formerplace establishes the residence. If the family place is temporaryor for transient purposes, it is not the residence.

I mentioned this a couple of days ago in the comments here; my wife said it last week to me in our home; I'm sure Republicans and Walker have thought of this idea long before that.

I think the main reason they're not doing it is because they may not be sure of the outcome or at least don't want to put some more moderate Republican Senators, who may be vulnerable to recall, in the position of having to vote on the CB issue as a stand alone.

The Left’s obsession with the Koch Brothers is interesting from the psychological perspective. You wonder if it’s genuine, in which case there should be a term for it in the reference books for psychological disorders, or it’s feigned, in which case it’s an example of one of Alinsky’s Rules. With Leftists there is always a doubt if they are wicked or insane.

FLS - I have given small donations to candidates the last few years(all GOP). I have no immediate financial connections to giant multi-national corporations. Yet I feel that Citizens United benefits me because corporations do more to drive economic growth then government. So I favor unlimited corporate spending on political ads to counter government intrusion in the private sector. I view CU as in my own economic interest, and I suspect many other people do as well.

2) Continue with the business of the legislature by voting on other non-fiscal items that don’t require a supermajority such as Voter ID, “shall issue” concealed carry, tort reform, abolishing racial preferences and setasides, etc.

3) Layoff State employees on schedule

4) Push through recall elections for the absent Democratic Senators.

5a) If / when they return to either (a) do their jobs or (b) try to thwart the recall, slap the cuffs on the most unsympathetic ones, drag them to the Senate chambers and vote to pass the budget bill; or

5b) Keep laying off State employees and reminding voters that it’s the fault of the absent Senators.